Is religion good for us?

Some religions are "... closer to harmless"? I think you are being a little too soft in your declaration.Whenever I hear this type of "harmless" statement I am reminded of Gestalt theory:
"The whole is greater than the sum of the parts".Here is an example regarding percentages of the parts:My sister-in-law likes to read National Enquirer, The Globe, and other rags from the supermarket checkout aisle. Reviewing only this "part" of her reading diet, perhaps one can say it is harmless. But if you consider the whole, that is, the entirety that in my sister's case does NOT include science articles, medical journals, philosophy, math exercises, politics, etc., we can figuratively say my sister-in-law is dining completely on dessert. And I think you would agree a diet of only chocolate bon-bons is not harmless.Thus, IMO, it is the displacement of critical thinking skills that make ALL religions ultimately harmFUL.Or, let me ask it this way, in a world that has so much poverty, wars, disease, and bigotry, is there so much critical thinking in it that we can afford to eat mental bon-bons?Edited by dronester, : clarity

Not necessarily . . .I don't think your suggesting that EVERY non-critical-thinking person cannot cast off the harmful chains of religion, correct? Indeed, I was raised as a roman-catholic, and now, years later, I am almost a normal human being. Almost. But, since I partially agree with you, perhaps we need to look at this as a more non-binary possibility:With a POSSIBLE convertibility in mind, would you at least agree how much sooner critical thinking COULD start if it wasn't for the upbringing of religion's harmful impediments?At the very least, you would prefer creative-problem-solving/critical thinking skills taught in primary school over religious dogma, correct? Which teachings/training would you prefer take up (displace) the most room in the mind of an early learner?

Hey hey Rhavin,Again, we are in the same ball park. Some nit-picks . . . Well, I think it USUALLY leads to harm. If knowledge is power, than, ignorance is weakness. I'll grant you your remote exceptions to the rule, but let us think in general terms . . . Again, I can agree with your remote and individual exceptions to the rule. But we really need to examine the majority of the cases, the "big picture". For example; Look at how many people voted for Bush Jr. TWICE! They "thought" he was truly looking out for their best interests. By their non-thinking actions, they reduced health care for their families, reduced employment opportunities, encouraged family members to die for oil, and caused their children to live in poisonous environments. 50 MILLION voters! (and they didn't just harm themselves as the world knows) No, but religion is the BIGGEST source. I believe "choose" is the wrong word. Rather, It is ingrained/taught early in the majority of nations, especially in a powerful nation as the USA where consequences to the world have been most severe.Rhavin, I think we are generally in agreement, just not to the same degree again. At the very least, check out my post to Ringo above and particularly the last paragraph:

Gee whiz, you wrote only "SOME"?I may be highly biased, but because I was an art director for a publisher that produced books for early education on critical thinking/creative problem solving, my experience would say MOST individuals.Again, in early life/education, let's fill up with thinking skills, less bon-bons.

Hey Rhavin,Thanks for the well-thought reply. Your posts are always a pleasure to read.However, just a short comment on this: The word "many" is sometimes not very useful. Would you agree MOST people have religion chosen for them. That is why in USA there are mostly "christians", India mostly hindus, and Iran has mostly muslims. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say only a small percentage actually CHOOSE their religions? Absolutely. Our only 'prayer' for a better world is early education. If a child can learn to read, a child CAN learn critical thinking skills. As a previous art director for a publishing house that specialized in creative problem solving materials, I can attest to this.

If a child can learn to read, a child CAN learn critical thinking skills. It really isn't difficult. Anyways, I think you might agree that these basic life skills are, much, much, much more easy to learn than the tenets/dogma of any religion. (Have you ever seen video of children inside a madrasa muslim school learning to memorize the ENTIRE Koran? holy chrysler!!! Again, let's DISPLACE some of that learning with some critical thinking skills.)As a previous art director for a publishing house that specialized in creative problem solving materials for children, I can vouch for the results.Check out this book if you are curious:
Creative Problem Solving for Children
CPS for Kids: A Resource Book for Teaching Creative Problem-Solving to Children - Bob Eberle, Bob Stanish - Google Books

Oy.(BTW, There's that word "many" again. Grrr.)(BTW, BTW, The huge time and effort to memorize the entire koran MUST be hurculean. I never had great memory skills, so I think I'd fail at this task.)I am getting the impression from you that you think learning critical thinking skills is a ardous, time-consuming, task to learn. It isn't. Really. I take it you didn't look at my link to the book "Creative problem solving for CHILDREN". I think it would help for you to review what exactly creative problem solving teaching involves.Everybody already uses critical thinking skills everyday, probably a hundred times in the grocery store alone. Whenever we choose a cereal based on ingredients or price we are using critical thinking. I believe Rhavin had also wrote above that most people use critical thinking in all aspects of their lives (you too), EXCEPT for the religious part. The idea is just to further embrace it, make it a habit in ALL things. Well, of course. But now your current argument is swaying off the religious topic. Let me re-ask: if there is only a finite amount of time and money for studies and learning, which would you rather have children learn/memorize:?a. skills in critical thinkingb. religious dogma

Yes, exactly, similar to many people uncritically choosing to follow all religious dogma. We agree, that's a bad thing, right? Really?So if you bought 120kg of Wheaties for $2, when the same store had a 160kg box for $1.50, that wouldn't be a bad choice?So if you bought a sugar laden cereal of Count Chocula with marshmallows when you have severe diabetes, that wouldn't be a bad choice?C'mon Ringo, are you pulling my leg?Teaching critical thinking skills doesn't need to be magical. It is simple and it works by instilling a habit of critical thinking in very young children. Most important to my argument is it's additionally beneficial when religious dogma is not displacing/impeding its lessons. Please review the link I gave you.(if your only argument is that some people, with religious mentalities like Buzz, couldn't learn critical thinking at their advanced ages, then we are in agreement)Edited by dronester, : clarityEdited by dronester, : more clarityEdited by dronester, : added Buzz example.

Ringo and Rhavin, Ok, it seems I am pushing my argument too hard. But I think I am doing this because my word "displacement" is not being considered. Nevertheless, please allow me to backtrack a smidge . . .Here again is my opening assertion: When Rhavin writes: If you say identical EXCEPT that you have a higher percentage of irrational beliefs, than by simple arithmetic, your irrational thought process will put you at higher RISK of doing something harmful. I get it, not "necessarily", but why would anyone choose to be at risk?I think I had previously expressed the risk this way: Another way to say this is: to solve the worlds problems we cannot afford the risk of using any less than "100%" of our critical thinking skills. To subtract our critical thinking capacity ANY percentage, would "necessarily" cause us to be at the very least, at risk.Can we agree on this? Yes, I already agreed to this when you first stated most people use critical thinking in all aspects of their life, EXCEPT their religious beliefs.I'm gone till monday. Gentlemen, have a good weekend.

No, and I don't where you are getting this? Except for the "necessarily harmful" part, I think my argument has been consistent, but if I am still failing you, here it is again:Critical thinking is BETTER than irrational thinking. In early child development, it is BETTER to DISPLACE irrational thinking/learning (e.g., religious dogma) with critical thinking/learning (creative problem solving or science). I suppose, but this ultimately SEEMS like an argument AGAINST critical thinking, and possibly, in favor FOR irrational thinking. As you previously already wrote: I am not sure where your seemingly contradictive current argument is leading. Do you or don't you want to encourage critical thinking skills? Are you saying critical thinking is "necessarily" not so good at matters of opinion?Edited by dronester, : clarityEdited by dronester, : clarity, clarity, clarity

Ringo,Perhaps it was the wrong day for me to start sniffing glue, but I am unclear in your statements/questions.Your wrote in message #84 of 103 (577192): Yet you're asking me: If it is true that there is no standard, why do you ALSO think critical thinking should be encouraged? Please explain. Whoops, I noticed you switched my term "irrational thinking" with your term "non-critical thinking". Are they EXACTLY the same? If not exactly the same, let's continue using the word "irrational". (Reminder, my argument is: Critical thinking is BETTER than irrational thinking.) If critical thinking can produce conflicting results, then why are you also encouraging it: ? Please explain this apparent contradiction. I've been trying to use "BETTER than" instead of "good": So the much better posed question becomes "will critical thinking be BETTER than irrational thinking when determining political matters?" Please answer. Of course. If this is so, then you need to explain why you wrote:

Hey Ringo, sorry for the time out in the action . . . Wow, the word "irrational" appeared well OVER 30 posts ago. After so many posts, it may SEEM to some that your argument has become weak and/or desperate if you SUDDENLY feel the need to UNILATERALLY "backspace" an opponent's position. Just saying. Capitalized emphasis mine.I noted you wisely loopholed your position with the word "arguably," . . . TWICE for good measure. But if you still want to offer evidence that Alsace-Lorraine and the world wars that followed it are products (about 50 million killed. More civilians died than soldiers. Horrible deaths from firestorms, explosions, vaporizations, suffocation, starvation, etc.) of critical thinking, I'd be most interested.BTW, this didn't help: The following reference is for home viewers who do not understand critical thinking:

I think you know I can't provide negative evidence.As a wise person in another thread said, "It's the responsibility of the claimant to produce the evidence." It's your claim/argument that critical thinking ("purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do") caused 50 million killed, more civilians died than soldiers, horrible deaths from firestorms, explosions, vaporizations, suffocation, starvation, etc, etc, etc.Evidence please. Errr, no, I never suggested critical thinking was ever responsible for the WW deaths. (Perhaps I am reading into this question too deep, but it seems you are giving me a loaded question, yes?)PS: Seriously Ringo, at this point it SEEMS you MIGHT be unclear of what "critical thinking" fully entails. Before continuing, please review the PRINCIPLES and DISPOSITIONS of Critical Thinking at the following site which I am including AGAIN:
Critical thinking - Wikipedia

Hey Ringo,I have noted that you have abandoned your former argument like a doorstep baby: It has now suddenly been changed to: "ALL based on critical thinking"?So let me get this straight, . . .You are asserting that nations (primarily the instigator of WWII, Nazi Germany), did NOT use hateful and IRRATIONAL ideology (a doctrine of racial and cultural superiority) to guide their actions that caused: 50 million killed, more civilians died than soldiers, horrible deaths from firestorms, explosions, vaporizations, suffocation, starvation, etc, etc, etc.. But rather, you now assert that it was the conflicting conclusions, ALL based on critical thinking ("purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do"), that caused nations, primarily Nazi Germany in WWII, to bring about 50 million killed, more civilians died than soldiers, horrible deaths from firestorms, explosions, vaporizations, suffocation, starvation, etc, etc, etc., (and their ultimate self-destruction).I am dumbfounded by your apparent assertion. Several months ago on PBS, there was a program that briefly touched upon Nazi Germany's systemic, dogmatic, and unyielding use of irrational problem solving during the war. The show wasn't ENTIRELY about the irrationality (the doctrine of racial and cultural superiority) of the Nazis. But in this small section, the producers showed that critical thinking at any point would have interrupted the escalation of atrocities. For example: So blinded to their irrational beliefs, the German high command peremptory concluded the ONLY "sensible/logical" next step after rounding up the Polish jews in the ghetto, was their extermination. The war's conclusion (50 million killed, more civilians died than soldiers, horrible deaths from firestorms, explosions, vaporizations, suffocation, starvation, etc,) was never a goal or mission in the beginning, just an inevitable result of serial irrational thinking, entirely divorced by the process of critical thinking.BTW, Ringo, you apparently STILL have not read the PRINCIPLES and DISPOSITIONS of Critical Thinking. Specifically: "Critical thinking employs not only logic (either formal or, much more often, informal) but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance and FAIRNESS."
Critical thinking - Wikipedia

Errr, while I can agree with this brand new statement, that's not the point that you have been arguing. Let me remind you of your original argument and example, that a world catastrophe can be a product of critical thinking . . . Seems like a change to me, you asserted your position and then said it wasn't. Please review . . . . . . has been changed to . . . . . . and this week it seems you replaced CONFLICTING CONCLUSIONS with the term "lebensraum":Seemingly, you now write it was lebensraum (additional territory deemed necessary to a nation), BASED ON CRITICAL THINKING, that brought about 50 million killed, more civilians died than soldiers, horrible deaths from firestorms, explosions, vaporizations, suffocation, starvation, etc, etc, etc., AND Germany's ultimate SELF-DESTRUCTION? Ringo, you are arguing that the actions necessary for a nation's SURVIVAL, that contradictorily and directly caused it's own SELF-DESTRUCTION, are based on critical thinking? Such a lopsided FAILURE in broad intellectual criteria (such as CLARITY, CREDIBILITY, ACCURACY, PRECISION, RELEVANCE, DEPTH, BREADTH, SIGNIFICANCE and FAIRNESS) can only be LAUGHABLY defined by the term "critical thinking".Additionally, I noted you are attempting to also re-define "Fairness" as a fuzzy (and apparently wholly SELFISH) concept. Wow. From your following example, it seems you want me to believe that the result of 6 million killed, horrible deaths from suffocation, starvation, beatings, shootings, gassings, etc, AND helped bring about Germany's own SELF-DESTRUCTION, can somehow be ACCURATELY and HONESTLY described as being "Fair" . . . It appears you are now using disingenuous arguments (anathema to critical thinking) to support your desperate position. The premise was not a product of critical thinking:
Critical thinking - Wikipedia